VIDEO: Mike Oliveri Gets the Final Word at a LA City Council Meeting

Due to transportation difficulties, Mike Oliveri (patient activist) arrives at the Los Angeles Council Meeting right at the tail end of Public Comment. Nevertheless he still manages to get in and on record, the case for medical marijuana collectives.

Video: Long Beach City Council Discusses Medical Marijuana Ordinance and Further Restrictions

Long Beach City Council Meeting (December 14, 2010)

Part 1 of 2


Part 2 of 2

NEWS: Council Tweaks Medical Marijuana Law Again

The number of possible medical marijuana collectives in Long Beach continues to shrink.

The City Council passed a first reading Tuesday of the medical marijuana ordinance that will eliminate about a dozen more collectives by adding a buffer zone for parks after several different substitutes and amendments were turned away.

The council passed the following rules:

• Collectives will not be allowed to exist within 1,000 feet of parks (in addition to the 1,000-foot restriction to elementary and middle schools, 1,500 feet from high schools and 1,000 feet from other collectives). However, beaches were stricken from the definition of parks for the purposes of this ordinance.

• There will be a 45-day public comment period regarding the propriety of issuing a permit for a particular location. There will be a City Council hearing within 60 days after the 45-public hearing period.

• Each approved collective will need to install and maintain video surveillance equipment that will allow the police department to monitor the exterior grounds for the purpose of looking into criminal and nuisance activity.

• Collectives will be allowed to operate only between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.

• Each collective will be required to submit an annual audited report prepared by a CPA that will detail statements including revenue, operational costs and expenditures.

• There will be a one-year moratorium on accepting any new applications starting immediately.

The original law had been enacted in the late summer, eliminating many of an estimated 90-plus existing collectives through an application and lottery process. After the lottery, the number of potential collectives was reduced to 32.

Then in early November, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske and Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell introduced an agenda item for further restrictions. The council decided to enact the park buffers. It was believed at the time that an additional nine collectives would be eliminated with the newer restrictions added.

For much of the meeting, the debate centered on three issues: Whether patients’ rights were violated with further security camera measures, if collectives eliminated by newer restrictions should receive a 60-day relocation period and whether the council should go further and enact rules that would restrict the number of collectives to two per district.

Eighth District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich said she was concerned with requiring collectives to have a “live tape” setup for the Long Beach Police Department to use at all times. Several people in the public comment portion of the item echoed her sentiments.

“Is it (this kind of measure) going to be at a CVS or Walgreens?” asked Christina Roberts, a First District resident and U.S. Army veteran.

Seventh District Councilman James Johnson remained adamant that the council vote to cap the number of collectives to a maximum of two per district. He pointed out that as the buffer zones stand right now, that his and other districts in north Long Beach have a much larger number of collectives. He said he wanted a “more equitable distribution” so that no district was overburdened, and that patients would have equal access all over the city.

Ninth District Councilman Steven Neal made a motion to adopt the further restrictions, but to allow those displaced a relocation period of 60 days — and to remove beaches from the parks definition for this specific ordinance. That motion passed 5-4.

However, during the council’s vote to impose the one-year moratorium, it appeared as though Schipske had a change of heart. She asked the council to reconsider the vote that had passed 5-4. She then changed her vote and the measure failed 5-4 (Schipske, O’Donnell, Johnson, DeLong and Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal voted against).

Earlier, the council voted 7-2 (Johnson, O’Donnell dissenting) against Johnson’s request for a maximum collective cap of two.

The council passed its final ordinance 6-3 (Johnson, Gabelich and Sixth District Councilman Dee Andrews dissenting).

The new restrictions could open the city up to more lawsuits from collectives. Attorney Richard Brizendine warned the council that nine collectives already had approached him about potential litigation against the city.

Lobbyist Carl Kemp, who said he was representing four collectives, pleaded with the council to at least allow for the 60-day relocation amendment to pass.

“You have to let people relocate if you change the rules (further),” he said.

The council still must pass the ordinance change on a second reading before it goes into effect.

Source: Gazettes

NEWS: Medicinal marijuana operators and advocates stage protest at City Hall

Incensed by the city’s determination that just a quarter of the registered Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries are qualified to remain open, about 80 operators and advocates held a subdued rally Tuesday and then trooped into City Hall to demand that the City Council intervene.

The protest’s only speaker was Don Duncan, a Los Angeles resident who is the state director for Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy organization. Standing on a planter next to placards that went unused and donuts that went uneaten, he urged the crowd to lobby their council members.

“Don’t be discouraged. Don’t be cynical. Stand up and fight some more, and we’re going to win this,” he said. “I say shame on the council for letting this process go on autopilot.”

The city clerk’s office, based on legal advice from the city attorney’s office, has notified 128 of the 169 registered dispensaries that applied to remain open that they were ineligible. Many were eliminated only because their management changed since they registered with the city in 2007, a little-noticed requirement in the city’s medical marijuana ordinance. Among those excluded are almost all of the most politically active dispensary operators.

Barry Kramer, who runs California Patients Collective, told the City Council that the provision was ridiculous. “The city has deemed that a management change is somehow harmful to our community,” he said, noting that the Police Department also has had a management change.

Heather Boswell, who cradled a Jack Russell terrier she has for emotional support, said she uses marijuana for manic depression, to balance out the medication she takes. “My motto is, I don’t get high, I get even,” she said. She noted that the ordinance restricts patients to one dispensary, and she said the one she prefers, Cornerstone Research Collective, was declared ineligible because of management changes. If it closes, she said, “I will be in a very bad situation.”

Michael Backes, who runs Cornerstone in the Eagle Rock neighborhood, predicted that many aspects of the ordinance, which took effect in June, would not stand up in court. “It’s going to be shredded like a potato pancake,” he said. “When this thing ends up being chopped up with scissors by the Superior Court, the City Council is going to have to step up.”

The city has sued all the ineligible operators and asked Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr to rule on whether the city’s procedure is legal. About 80 dispensaries, which were outlawed by the ordinance, have sued to overturn the law.

Councilman Jose Huizar, whose district includes Eagle Rock, said, “There’s going to be a lot of kinks in any new legislation.” He said the city attorney’s office has advised the council to let the court cases go forward. “Look, we have to see what the judge rules,” he said.

He said he was not worried that people who need to use medical marijuana will be unable to get it, noting that the ordinance allows for 70 dispensaries. “When all the dust settles,” he said, “medical marijuana patients will have access, but we’re going through an uncomfortable time.”

Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw the creation of the ordinance, said he intends to meet with city officials to discuss its implementation.

“It’s a living document,” he said.

But he said he was wary of intruding into the winnowing process. “To me, what’s hard to grasp is: Who do you believe?” he said. “Weeding out who is legitimate is very difficult.”

Source: Los Angeles Times

LA City Council Meeting on medical marijuana ordinance. Public Comment by Dan Halbert

VIDEO: Long Beach City Council Meeting, Councilman Robert Garcia on medical marijuana

Councilman Ed Reyes Comments at the Los Angeles Council Meeting on Medical Marijuana Ordinance

A clip of Ed Reyes discussing behaviors of collectives and how the city will approach those collectives in violation of any ordinance that is passed. Also discussed are the privacy concerns of patients and collectives.

Mark Adams, Medical marijuana collective ordinance discussions in Long Beach on November 10, 2009

Mark Adams, medical marijuana collective owner and director of the Long Beach Chapter of the Medical Cannabis Association, speaks to the Long Beach City Council regarding proposed draft ordinance for medical marijuana collectives/dispensaries.

Mark Adams' collective website: http://www.herbalsolutionsca.com